Stuart Dickson Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I was watching the goals programme on Sky Sports this morning and guesting was ex Saint, Charlie Adam. In the round up of the fixtures they showed Arsenals Santi Cazorla stepping up to hit and miss a penalty against West Brom. The pundits on the programme rightly highlighted the fact that after the miss the referee Mark Clattenburg awarded West Brom a free kick. Cazorla had slipped as he kicked the ball, played the ball forward with his right foot, onto his left foot and the ball ballooned over the bar. The free kick was correctly awarded as per the rules of the game because Cazorla played the ball twice without anyone else touching the ball. The pundits asked Charlie Adam for his comments and he said he didn't even realise that was the rule. Cringe! Then the pundits went on to ask what would have happened had Cazorla scored instead of missing the target and the panel all appeared to agree that whilst it should still be a foul, the referee should probably have let the goal stand. This too was utterly and embarrassingly incorrect. As per the Laws of the Game what Clattenberg would have done in that situation is he would have ordered the kick to be retaken. If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game: • the referee allows the kick to be taken • if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken • if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the infringement occurred It might well have been a highly unusual occurrence in a football match, but surely a professional footballer should know the laws of the game inside out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I was watching the goals programme on Sky Sports this morning and guesting was ex Saint, Charlie Adam. In the round up of the fixtures they showed Arsenals Santi Cazorla stepping up to hit and miss a penalty against West Brom. The pundits on the programme rightly highlighted the fact that after the miss the referee Mark Clattenburg awarded West Brom a free kick. Cazorla had slipped as he kicked the ball, played the ball forward with his right foot, onto his left foot and the ball ballooned over the bar. The free kick was correctly awarded as per the rules of the game because Cazorla played the ball twice without anyone else touching the ball. The pundits asked Charlie Adam for his comments and he said he didn't even realise that was the rule. Cringe! Then the pundits went on to ask what would have happened had Cazorla scored instead of missing the target and the panel all appeared to agree that whilst it should still be a foul, the referee should probably have let the goal stand. This too was utterly and embarrassingly incorrect. As per the Laws of the Game what Clattenberg would have done in that situation is he would have ordered the kick to be retaken. It might well have been a highly unusual occurrence in a football match, but surely a professional footballer should know the laws of the game inside out. #tallpoppysyndrome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TediousTom Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I was watching the goals programme on Sky Sports this morning and guesting was ex Saint, Charlie Adam. In the round up of the fixtures they showed Arsenals Santi Cazorla stepping up to hit and miss a penalty against West Brom. The pundits on the programme rightly highlighted the fact that after the miss the referee Mark Clattenburg awarded West Brom a free kick. Cazorla had slipped as he kicked the ball, played the ball forward with his right foot, onto his left foot and the ball ballooned over the bar. The free kick was correctly awarded as per the rules of the game because Cazorla played the ball twice without anyone else touching the ball. The pundits asked Charlie Adam for his comments and he said he didn't even realise that was the rule. Cringe! Then the pundits went on to ask what would have happened had Cazorla scored instead of missing the target and the panel all appeared to agree that whilst it should still be a foul, the referee should probably have let the goal stand. This too was utterly and embarrassingly incorrect. As per the Laws of the Game what Clattenberg would have done in that situation is he would have ordered the kick to be retaken. It might well have been a highly unusual occurrence in a football match, but surely a professional footballer should know the laws of the game inside out. And what are the SNP doing about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky1 Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 You may also want to include Managers and Referees in your title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Thankfully the ref knew the rule and he gave a free kick instantly before seeing where the ball went. Most players and most fans generally don't know the rules of the game sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Saint Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 You may also want to include Managers and Referees in your title Exactly. Usual Dicky bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie-dee Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I was watching my sons school team last week and came across this decision by the ref. the ball was coming over towards my son and he called to his teammate to " Leave it." The Ref blew for a free kick to the other team explaining that you must put a name on the pass. Fair Do's to the ref but I have never saw play being stopped for this reason in all my years watching and coaching football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I was watching my sons school team last week and came across this decision by the ref. the ball was coming over towards my son and he called to his teammate to " Leave it." The Ref blew for a free kick to the other team explaining that you must put a name on the pass. Fair Do's to the ref but I have never saw play being stopped for this reason in all my years watching and coaching football. i had this happen to me when i was a kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I was watching my sons school team last week and came across this decision by the ref. the ball was coming over towards my son and he called to his teammate to " Leave it." The Ref blew for a free kick to the other team explaining that you must put a name on the pass. Fair Do's to the ref but I have never saw play being stopped for this reason in all my years watching and coaching football. Was a regular thing in the Sunday league where at times there were so many ringers playing we didnt even know their names !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) I was watching my sons school team last week and came across this decision by the ref. the ball was coming over towards my son and he called to his teammate to " Leave it." The Ref blew for a free kick to the other team explaining that you must put a name on the pass. Fair Do's to the ref but I have never saw play being stopped for this reason in all my years watching and coaching football. The referee got it wrong. There is no rule that states you must shout a name that leads to an indirect free kick. There is a rule in the Laws of the Game that covers a player verbally distracting an opponent in a deliberate manner, however that is a cautionable offence and not one that attracts a foul. If the referee believed that your son had distracted an opponent by shouting "leave it", he should have allowed the play to continue until the ball went out of play and then booked your son. Edited November 26, 2015 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Something new every day... I had to look up a 'Marbill's coach'. Not pretty.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 i had this happen to me when i was a kid. Me too. Back then the ref gave an indirect free kick but I don't remember bookings being handed out unless some clown was doing it all the time. We soon learned to add a name, any old bloody name at all, and the ref didn't seem to notice if it was wrong. Of course, we were brighter, sharper kids in them old days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 DUMMY !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 DUMMY !!!!!! That's a booking for sure. You forgot to add a name! Silly billy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 I think we all knew who he was talking about. Oi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 Wonder what P1SH #thichasfcuk will say about how he was forced out of WWW. Oh this will be interesting - since I believe I was the only one on here at WWW. I've never been forced out of anywhere - well except for the Auld Store Bar in Law Village where the barman took the side of one heavily inebriated regular thought I'd played the trick shot of the century to deliberately hit him with the cue ball on his broken toe. So lets hear it then. Remember to supply evidence and sources, just so I can pass it to my lawyer if it's in any way inaccurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Lying Bigot.jpg mutley1.jpg Surprise, surprise. You shat it again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Here's your answer here. http://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/forums/index.php/topic/40690-scottish-independence-model-is-dead/page-14#entry1323501 Nope, still no idea what you are referring to. You'll just have to come straight out with it Coward. Either you can back up your allegation that I was "forced out" or you can't. Otherwise you are simply making a defamatory remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Can you not even read that what you claimed was written by zurich allan, has been denied by the man himself. So did you lie about what he wrote or are you just really #thichasfcuk and not able to apologize? Take it whatever way you want. Remember not everything is about you and what WWW was I referring to? Will that be me getting a lawyers letter? Remember to inform him/her of all the lies you've posted on here. I can supply him/her with all information he/she requires. Your credibility as has been proven on here numerous times is ZERO. No doubt you'll not answer the first question as your known for ignoring folk when you get found out for lying. Ah so which one of two other people you've referred to as #thichasfcuk were you referring to and which WWW did you mean. I'm sure nosferatu and Reynard will be interested to see what you were falsely insinuating about one of them, if it wasn't meant to be about me. Have some bottle for once. You made an insinuation of impropriety on a website using your own log in. Name who it was aimed at and name the WWW you were referring to. Show your proof and name your sources. Your reputation as a coward was already cemented when you challenged me to call you a Natsi to your face, only for you not to turn up at the agreed location on the agreed date. Here's an opportunity to show you have grown a spine and you are happy to back up your allegations. Edited November 30, 2015 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Well we all knew he'd ignore my first question, why was that? An for the rest, it was you #thichasfcuk, and the WWW was the World Wide Web. I thought you'd ran off to your imaginary lawyer and moaned at being forced off it because you were getting continually found out as a liar and an idiot. So first it wasn't all about me, now it is. And you're now attempting to claim I was "forced out" of the World Wide Web, when I have been posting on this website all day long. You're still a coward - only now you are a coward that has posted unfounded allegations. I'll expect an apology in your next post. Edited November 30, 2015 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Show me where I actually said it wasn't you and not what you thought you read. #thichasfcuk I'll certainly not apologize to a proven liar. Every person can clearly see your deflecting from the question I asked? I believe I've gave you some good advice before, but I'll try again. Seek help for your need to lie, it may have been the cause of your breakdown trying to remember the real world and the wee world in your head. Sending you as well some love that you may need to fill an obvious lack of it. Remember not everything is about you and what WWW was I referring to? We can all see who the proven liar is. Without doubt it's you - the coward - trying desperately to back out of the hole you got yourself into. You couldn't even tell the truth when asked what WWW you were referring to because you realised you'd f**ked up making yet another unfounded and false allegation defaming me. Here's some good advice - stop posting false allegations online before someone really does get a lawyer involved, it really could harm your career prospects. If you don't believe me try asking the same person who you "claim" told you not to meet me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 I made a statement of fact, I never wrote it wasn't about you. You just read into it what you wanted to. What false allegations have I wrote, I've called you a liar and someone that has posted bigoted comments. Both of which I can back up if you want to go waste your imaginary money on imaginary lawyers like you said you were going to do previously to another forum member. I don't believe he's heard from any lawyers, did you lie about going to the lawyers that time or were you laughed out their office? You falsely alleged that I had been "forced out" of WWW. Whether that's Wishaw Wycombe Wanderers or as you later claimed the World Wide Web you were patently lying. I haven't been "forced out" of anywhere. Now.....your apology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 I'm sorry you seemed to have blacked out again and missed the post where i wrote that I wouldn't apologize to a liar. Would you like me to call you an Ambulance. Just to clarify I'm not actually calling you an Ambulance, I'm offering to call you an Ambulance. We have noticed you don't understand basic English. Time for home for me. I'd like to say it was a pleasure, but then I would have lied. You've lied anyway. I wasn't "forced out" of Wishaw Wycombe, and I wasn't "forced out" of the World Wide Web. You're a liar, Coward, and a pathetic one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Is reading what has been actually written so hard for you to comprehend? If you read back my replies you'll see the truth. You'll find it all explained here http://wingsoverscotland.com/another-vow-delivered/ I read "the truth". You made claims that were defamatory and false. You've since refused to back up any of your claims either with evidence or a source. You're now trying desperately to deflect and you've now got your handers involved to try and bail you out the mess you are in. Only a true coward would need help like you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.